CCBC-Net Archives
Classics and Cultural Literacy
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Nina A Lindsay <NALINDSA>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 14:21 CST
I haven't jumped into the discussion on classics until now because I felt frustrated with the term "classic." I've never liked it, because it is an essentially empty term, with a connotation of authority which can be applied to almost any literary work that is generally known within a certain circle. Betty's comments help me put my finger on this: that "classics" such as _Huck Finn_ and _Scarlet Letter_ are classics for completely different reasons than, say _Jacob Have I Loved_ or _Watson's Go to Birmingham_ (a bit new, for me, to be called "classic", except that books with medals on them will, almost certainly, become that). The difference, in my mind, has to do with kinds of literacy. The newer classics that we've been talking about have value in their literary quality and in the fact that many kids will be able to identify with, or at least easily enjoy them, and thus be willing/motivated/able to discuss aspects of the writing in a class setting. Most kids can't be started on Huck Finn. But once they have a basis for understanding, they might be able to discuss aspects of these older literary classics and, even if they don't identify with or enjoy them, understand them in a historical context (both literary and social), and be able to enter into wider discussions in which knowledge of these stories is often a given. Simplistically: some classics (the newer ones we've been discussing) can give individual pleasure and value, and thus promote basic literacy; the older, cannonized classics can provide a cultural literacy. Looked at this way, "classics" operate in many different manners. Just look at what we've identified this month as "classic": award winners, the canon, books that resonate with us personally, books that have perceived literary quality, books that have "stood the test of time". I'm not any closer to knowing what a
"classic" is, but I have a much better understanding of what we think it might be -- and that is, afterall, what counts. Thanks for the comments -- sorry if mine have been a bit muddled.
In conteted confusion, Nina Lindsay
Vista School 720 Jackson Street Albany, CA 94706 nalindsa at macc.wisc.edu
Received on Mon 28 Jul 1997 03:21:00 PM CDT
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 14:21 CST
I haven't jumped into the discussion on classics until now because I felt frustrated with the term "classic." I've never liked it, because it is an essentially empty term, with a connotation of authority which can be applied to almost any literary work that is generally known within a certain circle. Betty's comments help me put my finger on this: that "classics" such as _Huck Finn_ and _Scarlet Letter_ are classics for completely different reasons than, say _Jacob Have I Loved_ or _Watson's Go to Birmingham_ (a bit new, for me, to be called "classic", except that books with medals on them will, almost certainly, become that). The difference, in my mind, has to do with kinds of literacy. The newer classics that we've been talking about have value in their literary quality and in the fact that many kids will be able to identify with, or at least easily enjoy them, and thus be willing/motivated/able to discuss aspects of the writing in a class setting. Most kids can't be started on Huck Finn. But once they have a basis for understanding, they might be able to discuss aspects of these older literary classics and, even if they don't identify with or enjoy them, understand them in a historical context (both literary and social), and be able to enter into wider discussions in which knowledge of these stories is often a given. Simplistically: some classics (the newer ones we've been discussing) can give individual pleasure and value, and thus promote basic literacy; the older, cannonized classics can provide a cultural literacy. Looked at this way, "classics" operate in many different manners. Just look at what we've identified this month as "classic": award winners, the canon, books that resonate with us personally, books that have perceived literary quality, books that have "stood the test of time". I'm not any closer to knowing what a
"classic" is, but I have a much better understanding of what we think it might be -- and that is, afterall, what counts. Thanks for the comments -- sorry if mine have been a bit muddled.
In conteted confusion, Nina Lindsay
Vista School 720 Jackson Street Albany, CA 94706 nalindsa at macc.wisc.edu
Received on Mon 28 Jul 1997 03:21:00 PM CDT
